The idiocy and the irony, banning nonsense goes full circle Options

[Kato]

A few months ago, I was arguing here with Slim about how, back in the old days, she and others were targeting just about anyone as being a LaRouchie, and I described the chaos that witchhunt had caused. I especially noted an incident when herself and long time user (and another anti-LaRouche figure) 172 (T-C-L-K-R-D) discussed banning a totally innocent guy as a "New LaRouche editor" back in 2007.

Here is my post, Slim simply batted this incident off by not addressing it specifically - claiming that people weren't banned as LaRouchies without good reason.

Not necessarily so. The whole LaRouche vs anti-LaRouche thing was a farce that had spilled out all over Wikipedia. Wholly unrelated people were getting threatened by Wikipedia powerplayers as "LaRouchies" on a regular basis. People saw it with their own eyes and have not been swayed by Hersch at this site. It was outrageous, and one of my first posts at this site was to highlight one such offense.

In April, 2007, an editor went to SlimVirgin and Willbeback and wrote this about Mbhiii (T-C-L-K-R-D) :

New LaRouche editor

This looks quite familar now. [10] Like the last HK sockpuppet blocked by SlimVirgin, HonourableSchoolboy, this account has been editing articles that appear in my recent contributions history or are linked to my userpage. Sigh. 172 | Talk 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sadly, by now I can spot LaRouche propaganda from a mile away. 172 | Talk 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The message to SlimVirgin has since been deleted. But the spirit of the message is typical. The accused had nothing to do with LaRouche, and his edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. Yet he was immediately attacked as a "New LaRouche" editor.

A group of editors, led by SlimVirgin, and accompanied by anti-LaRouche campaigners Chip Berlet and Dennis King (whose Conflicts Of Interest were never questioned) were allowed to treat Wikipedia like an anti-LaRouche version of the McCarthy witch-hunts. Thus creating massive bad feelings and subverting the whole culture of the place.

Well here comes the most ridiculous development yet. Having spent years orchestrating witch-hunts with Slim and Will against LaRouchies, former admin User:172 has himself been indefinitely banned by some lunatic administrator - on the declaration that he is the pro-LaRouche renegade Cognition (T-C-L-K-R-D) based on "checkuser evidence".

So either User:172 was the most brilliant stooge account ever (going back to 2002), or WP's checkuser facitilities are so incompetent, it has convicted the Witchfinder General of being a witch!

And to cap it off. Slim was right in the mix during these latest banning discussions which nailed 172!

[One]

I remember 172 vaguely, and surveying his work refreshes my recollection. Kato is right that there's no damn way he's pro-Larouchian.

Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure.

[Somey]

Possibilities suggested so far: 1) Cognition created to demonize Larouchians, 2) 172 account compromised, 3) massive IP table failure.

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network...

OK, looking over Cognition's contribs, I'd say it's more likely that Cognition's account is the one that's been compromised, so maybe I'd tend to lean toward Option 1 after all - utterly insane though it may be. It's just not like a die-hard Larouche supporter to behave like this - like he's desperate to get the account unblocked and willing to say almost anything to make it happen.

There's something very weird going on here, but I must say, it's fairly entertaining at least!

[Lar]

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network...

Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do.

CU data, and the CU who interprets it, lacks infallability. It helps to have multiple eyes but even then it's possible to be wrong. Nevertheless that option seems less likely... even less likely than a massive IP table error.

Sometimes the simpler explanation is better.

Here the simpler technical explanation points to a much more complicated social explanation though... that 172 ran a con for a long time is rather a complex (social) explanation.

[Kato]

Don't forget the one where 172 and Cognition are using the same Wi-Fi network...

Apparently doesn't fit the available data the way the first three options do.

Admittedly, that would be a major coincidence. 172 actually had a run-in with Cognition in 2006 according to diffs and the chances of the same two people now sharing a Wi-Fi network is minimal.

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP. 172 seemed to work in a small tight group which included Adam Carr and Will Beback, and these guys were adamant that WP had fallen into the hands of conspiracy theorists. They clearly co-ordinated their exploits, and saw their anti LaRouche activities as a war. This was in the old days, when there really was a cabal. Fred Bauder and even Jimbo Wales were on the periphery, overseeing the anti-LaRouche campaign. And it is on record that Will Beback plotted "black ops" accounts against enemies. Slim was influential, but was almost certainly not party to this, if true.

Here's Cognition editing the article of Michael Danby, Adam Carr's real life boss.

On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004.

Here, Cognition sarcastically gives Slim a barnstar. Is this a spoof or is this genuine? It seems hysterical even for a LaRouchie.

As I said, if this is true, then it explains a lot about the history of Wikipedia - and the McCarthyite atmosphere that prevailed. It may turn out that even the pro-LaRouche behavior was in part a fake. This is important, not because it concerns LaRouche, but because it had repercussions on governance throughout the site which still resonate today.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

On his user page, Cognition states that his "areas of expertise" include Bretton Woods system (T-H-L-K-D). 172 actually wrote that article back in 2004.

And here, SV adds "ignorance" to Cognition's "areas of expertise."

[Somey]

First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.

No. The most likely explanation (amazing as it sounds) is that Cognition was a "black ops" account created to demonize Hersch and add fuel to the theory that LaRouchies were attacking WP.

That's not credible, because the Cognition who was editing back before I was banned had a detailed knowledge of LaRouchismo that would be nearly impossible to fake.

Nearly impossible for whom, though? I'd tend to disagree with this - someone like Adam Carr or Will Beback, or even King & Berlet, probably got at least some of their information by reading uncritical commentaries and essays written by Larouche supporters. At some point they might easily have reached the point where they could imitate it.

Also, the fact that he was mainly active only during that few weeks in Summer '05 actually makes it more likely to me that the account was a "stalking horse" sock puppet, not less. Remember to always look at the first article edit - in this case, changing the photo for the article on Immanuel Kant. I'll admit it's not out of the realm of possibility, but is that normal for an inexperienced first-time editor? I don't think it is, and the anti-Larouche people on WP must not have thought so either at the time, because they quickly assumed he was a sock puppet of either HK or someone named "C Colden." (Also, the account might have been active longer if it hadn't been banned, obviously.)

The thing about User:Cognition, based on a closer look at his contribs, is that s/he always got reverted, in most cases very quickly:

Chip Berlet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17992862

The Beatles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=17880311

Australian Larouche Youth Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=18529862

Moreover, Cognition was clearly Australian - his hours of activity were the same as Carr's, often responding to Carr's talk page entries within five minutes, whereas he sometimes took several hours to respond to SlimVirgin, who presumably was/is in Canada. Cognition's spelling is British (favored by Aussies), not American - s/he "apologises," and doesn't "apologize," for example.

Incidentally, this actually got me confused about HK, too, back in 2006 - because of Carr, the number of Larouche-related conflicts involving Australia was so much greater than one would have expected, I guessed (wrongly) that HK was also Australian. (I was a little less experienced at the time, of course.)

User:172 is clearly British, however - he generally seems to have avoided anything Aussie-related. So, my working crackpot theory would be that Cognition was Carr's brainchild, but that they shared the account among several WP'ers (including User:172) in need of a convenient stalking horse. Or else, when Carr got bored with WP he simply turned the account over to 172. Either way, 172 tried to revive the account, possibly for the same purpose it was used for before, but got caught. It sounds crazy, and it definitely is, but not many other explanations can account for all the facts here - even given that the database has been corrupted.

I think it would be quite hard to fake this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....7BCognition.7D

On the contrary - the more over-the-top it is, the more likely it is to have been faked in order to make the Larouchies look like nutcases. (I'm not saying they're not nutcases, but let's try to be serious about this.)

Try to find a diff on WP where Herschelkrustofsky, whom we know to be genuine, says anything close to that - I don't believe you can.

[No one of consequence]

First of all, the WP database definitely is f**cked up, to the point where I should probably stop using asterisks in that word. Look at those dates, WP'ers - does that look right to you folks? I don't think even WR has ever had anything like that happen, and we've definitely had our share of problems in that area.

There was a server clock error at one point many years ago where about a half a day's edits got the wrong time stamps. There are no new errors that I am aware of.

Is there anyway for the CheckUsers to look at data from months ago and see if 172 and Cognition were editing from the same place?

Depends on how many months you are talking about. We've looked at all the currently available data. A lot of thought went into this including examination by many people.

From my perspective, the most ludicrous aspect of the whole situation is that 172 was blocked indefinitely. Even if we assume he is guilty of this sockpuppet scheme that's being alleged, this is a case where the user should have been notified by e-mail that the deception had been detected and that it would be publicized if he persisted. That way, 172 could have been retained as an editor and wouldn't have even had to lose face, while the sockpuppeting problem would have been solved. But most Wikipedia admins simply don't care if the project loses a hard-working contributor, if X number of articles go unwritten for X amount of time because of that person's absence. They think of themselves as enforcers, not problem-solvers.

He was. He didn't reply.

This case is far too simple for all this drama. They edit from the same residential IP and the same non-residential IP. Either they are the same person, or 172 hacked Cognition's account, or Cognition hacked 172's account. In any of those scenarios, the correct response is to block pending further information.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Sun 6th September 2009, 1:24am

[everyking]

He was. He didn't reply.

This case is far too simple for all this drama. They edit from the same residential IP and the same non-residential IP. Either they are the same person, or 172 hacked Cognition's account, or Cognition hacked 172's account. In any of those scenarios, the correct response is to block pending further information.

He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.

[One]

He was. He didn't reply.

This case is far too simple for all this drama. They edit from the same residential IP and the same non-residential IP. Either they are the same person, or 172 hacked Cognition's account, or Cognition hacked 172's account. In any of those scenarios, the correct response is to block pending further information.

He wasn't actively editing--no edits since 1 August. Considering that he wasn't doing anything harmful under the 172 account, and the Cognition account was blocked from editing already, what has the 172 block accomplished? If anybody was seriously concerned that he might do something wrong, he could have been quietly monitored whenever he returned to editing. This block merely gives a few people, who are more concerned with exercising powers than building content, the opportunity to say: "Ha! Gotcha!" There's no utility and no wisdom in it.

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Is it your position that all editors should be given an inexhaustible supply of stalking horses and game accounts as long as they're contributing POV "content" from at least one of their mannequins?

[gomi]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

Is it your position that all editors should be given an inexhaustible supply of stalking horses and game accounts as long as they're contributing POV "content" from at least one of their mannequins?

If you mean "NPOV content", then yes, that should be the rule. Ban accounts that don't contribute, allow the ones that do. That way you get contribution without drama. Any other way and you get a clique "in" group and an underclass, which is, of course, what you've got -- an MMPORG.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

I can vouch for that as well -- sock hunting at WP seems to be based more on innuendo than evidence, and calzaphobia has become a favored tactic for POV pushers. I think that DTobias' How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps should go in the hall of fame.

If a LaRouchite showed up at a meetup, then that may be why some of Wikipedia's senior admins are so dedicated to keeping their boots on LaRouche and interested parties to his views who then try to edit Wikipedia about it. They might feel like they're actually, actively engaged in "saving" Wikipedia from LaRouche.

The official LaRouche response to Wikipedia has been negligible, aside from an occasional snide comment in LaRouche publications.

[TungstenCarbide]

Everyking, did you know that this 172/Cognition entity was running several other accounts as well, including new ridiculous Larouchian socks? See, e.g. Throbbing Stallion.

Actually, WP's track record on ID'ing socks is so bad, I tend not to believe "pile on" sock nominations. In my own case, I gave up counting at about 20 "socks" purported to be mine that I had never heard of, or that I may have created, but given over to others months or years earlier. The desire to take an account and label is the "sock" of some banned and therefore silent bogeyman is rife on WP, since they are so afraid of defending actual edits, preferring to war instead against vaguely "banned" personalities.

I can vouch for that as well -- sock hunting at WP seems to be based more on innuendo than evidence, and calzaphobia has become a favored tactic for POV pushers. I think that DTobias' How to ban a POV you dislike in 9 easy steps should go in the hall of fame.

Just for fun I made this comment at wp:ani and was blocked within four minutes. Of course it was an obvious sock account, but it is a little unsettling to see those idiots certain that I'm a Larouchian. I've never edited a LaRouche article in my life.